20% Share Offer

[Green Rhino]

At the Guildhall meeting, James Brent offered the Argyle Fans' Trust the chance to buy 20% of the club.

What is the Society Board of the Trust doing to respond to this?

The Trust's objectives include to move towards owning a share in the club, so I am assuming that the response has been an unequivocal YES, pending the confirmation of details through consultation with members.

So, it would be good to see that the Society Board has been engaging positively with James Brent on this offer.

 

[Wozzer]

There will be a communication out very soon. Along with other things the board have been doing the 20% will be touched on.

 

[Green Rhino]

Thanks Wozzer - I look forward to that.

Discussions around this issue should be done with the maximum transparency and the ultimate decisions made by the membership, as I am sure you and the other Board members will agree.

 

[Gareth Nicholson]

Thanks Wozzer - I look forward to that.

Discussions around this issue should be done with the maximum transparency and the ultimate decisions made by the membership, as I am sure you and the other Board members will agree.

We do, which is why we wouldn't do something as rash as rush into a 'yes' without weighing up the pros and cons, setting them out for members, and then making a recommendation which we would ask members to endorse or oppose.

Owning a share in the club is a laudable aim, but we need to examine all areas of the offer, including how much it might cost, what it might provide in terms of scrutiny or other powers/responsibilities, and what the potential pitfalls might be. Rest assured that we're seeking that information and will put as much into the public domain as we are able to do.

 

[Green Rhino]

Thanks Wozzer - I look forward to that.

Discussions around this issue should be done with the maximum transparency and the ultimate decisions made by the membership, as I am sure you and the other Board members will agree.

We do, which is why we wouldn't do something as rash as rush into a 'yes' without weighing up the pros and cons, setting them out for members, and then making a recommendation which we would ask members to endorse or oppose.

Owning a share in the club is a laudable aim, but we need to examine all areas of the offer, including how much it might cost, what it might provide in terms of scrutiny or other powers/responsibilities, and what the potential pitfalls might be. Rest assured that we're seeking that information and will put as much into the public domain as we are able to do.

It is exctly that reticence which is causing me concern and which prompted my original post.

I would have hoped that the Society Board would be delighted with the principle of James Brent's offer and would say so loud and clear. Sure the details need to be sought and discussed etc but the lack of a positive general response worries me (see as the prime examples the wording on the front page of the AFT website and the rather hangdog wording of today's update on this issue).

 

[Keepitgreen]

Peter, where does Gareth say that he's not delighted with the offer? His post sums it up for me - let's look at what's on offer and what the pitfalls could be before jumping in. As has been said about the GAS board, let's see some meat on the bones. The lack of "dancing with joy" emoticons doesn't mean that he's not pleased with the offer in principle. As for the wording on the front page of the website, could you elaborate?

 

[Green Rhino]

It doesn't say that he isn't delighted with the offer, but it doesn't say ANYTHING positive. This (in italics) is the text on the front page of the AFT site:

Firstly, James Brent has offered the Fans’ Trust the option to acquire a 20% stakeholding in the club. The Board has begun to researching the issues and will consult the members in due course for a decision on whether to take up the offer. A meeting is being arranged to solicit further details of the offer. This option remains open until September; funds are not needed by that date, rather a decision on whether or not to take up the option is needed by then.

A decent response, would merely have said something along the lines of:

The Society Board warmly welcomes James Brent's offer of a 20% shareholding in the club and, as this is a major objective of the Trust, will work with him to ensure a mutually satisfactory proposal can be put in front of our members.

Instead the response appears consistently mealy mouthed.

 

[Gareth Nicholson]

Thanks Wozzer - I look forward to that.

Discussions around this issue should be done with the maximum transparency and the ultimate decisions made by the membership, as I am sure you and the other Board members will agree.

We do, which is why we wouldn't do something as rash as rush into a 'yes' without weighing up the pros and cons, setting them out for members, and then making a recommendation which we would ask members to endorse or oppose.

Owning a share in the club is a laudable aim, but we need to examine all areas of the offer, including how much it might cost, what it might provide in terms of scrutiny or other powers/responsibilities, and what the potential pitfalls might be. Rest assured that we're seeking that information and will put as much into the public domain as we are able to do.

It is exctly that reticence which is causing me concern and which prompted my original post.

I would have hoped that the Society Board would be delighted with the principle of James Brent's offer and would say so loud and clear. Sure the details need to be sought and discussed etc but the lack of a positive general response worries me (see as the prime examples the wording on the front page of the AFT website and the rather hangdog wording of today's update on this issue).

Peter, it's not reticence. It's caution. And I make no apology for it. If when the pros and cons have been weighed up we think it's a good deal that represents a real opportunity for some degree of community ownership of our club, you'll find nobody shouting louder in favour of it than me. But to shout about it before we've looked at it from all angles is asking for trouble in my view and has the potential to discredit the Trust and the work a lot of people have put in (you more than many) over the last 15 months.

The Trust has as one of its principles the advocacy for community ownership of football clubs. If that's not an indication as to what the Trust would like to see, I don't know what is. But as long as I'm a board member I'll not wander blindly into a deal or arrangement until it's been fully explored.

As someone from SD said to me recently, many people get caught up in the fever of owning a stake in the club, but it's not the stake that gives fans authority, it's what powers that stake confers. I think it's wise to abide by that maxim until we've a better idea of what this offer represents.

I suspect this won't be satisfactory, but it's where I think we are. Would have loved the opportunity to talk about it when you popped by on Saturday - maybe next time?

 

[Keepitgreen]

It doesn't say that he isn't delighted with the offer, but it doesn't say ANYTHING positive. This (in italics) is the text on the front page of the AFT site:

Firstly, James Brent has offered the Fans’ Trust the option to acquire a 20% stakeholding in the club. The Board has begun to researching the issues and will consult the members in due course for a decision on whether to take up the offer. A meeting is being arranged to solicit further details of the offer. This option remains open until September; funds are not needed by that date, rather a decision on whether or not to take up the option is needed by then.

A decent response, would merely have said something along the lines of:

The Society Board warmly welcomes James Brent's offer of a 20% shareholding in the club and, as this is a major objective of the Trust, will work with him to ensure a mutually satisfactory proposal can be put in front of our members.

Instead the response appears consistently mealy mouthed.

Fair point, you're written english work is better than some. I can't say that what they have written causes me too many concerns though. At least we know they're on to it.

 

[Green Rhino]

Hi Gareth
Thx for your response - I understand the need to have caveats, it is the (what appears as) sulleness of the overall response which is alarming.
See my post two above for my alternative wording which is clearly better than my attempt at an explanation!
Happy to enlarge later!

 

[esmer]

I would have hoped for a more enthusiastic response from the Trust, it is after all a once in a lifetime opportunity but it appears they are on the case. Hope they don't end up erring too much on the side of caution, this is far more important than the formation of the GASB and would make the Trust very relevant to the future of the club.

 

[Tim Chown]

As Gareth has said, of course the opportunity for the Trust to own a stake in the club is exciting but, and there is a but, we have to determine the terms on which the offer is being made.

At one end of the scale James Brent offers the Trust a 20% stake for £1, with, for example, a seat on the board and full powers of scrutiny.

On the other, he offers the 20% stake for £1,000,000 with no benefits beyond the stake.

Somewhere in the middle there's a mutually beneficial deal that the Trust membership would be happy to back. Obviously that's what we'll be trying to find, starting with the first formal meeting which we're trying to arrange as soon as possible.

 

[tonycholwell]

As Gareth has said, of course the opportunity for the Trust to own a stake in the club is exciting but, and there is a but, we have to determine the terms on which the offer is being made.

At one end of the scale James Brent offers the Trust a 20% stake for £1, with, for example, a seat on the board and full powers of scrutiny.

On the other, he offers the 20% stake for £1,000,000 with no benefits beyond the stake.

Somewhere in the middle there's a mutually beneficial deal that the Trust membership would be happy to back. Obviously that's what we'll be trying to find, starting with the first formal meeting which we're trying to arrange as soon as possible.

Although you now know how much it will cost you, so thats a start.

 

[Green Rhino]

As Gareth has said, of course the opportunity for the Trust to own a stake in the club is exciting but, and there is a but, we have to determine the terms on which the offer is being made.

At one end of the scale James Brent offers the Trust a 20% stake for £1, with, for example, a seat on the board and full powers of scrutiny.

On the other, he offers the 20% stake for £1,000,000 with no benefits beyond the stake.

Somewhere in the middle there's a mutually beneficial deal that the Trust membership would be happy to back. Obviously that's what we'll be trying to find, starting with the first formal meeting which we're trying to arrange as soon as possible.

I am not questionning that the Society Board should investigate the details, get independent advice and negotiate as deemed necessary. So both Tim and Gareth are responding to points I have not made.

Since this is the case, let me restate what I am saying.

1 - It is a key Objective of the Society Board (in summary) to gain a part of the shareholding of the club.
2 - The current owner has offered the Trust the opportunity to buy 20%.
3 - The Society Board should react politely, warmly, enthusiastically to the offer and engage fully, positively, rapidly and professionally with it.

That is all I ask. But the available eveidence apears to be that the Society Board has not yet done this (3 above). All I am asking I that this changes.

So, please don't be defensive and please do what your Objectives require you to do.

Thanks, Peter.

 

[knecht]

Blimey! I thought I was pedantic!

Picture the alternative scenario and The Trust board says, "This is a wonderful offer from Mr Brent. We are very pleased to receive it. We will consult as soon as we can and will then be raising the necessary funds." Then, after due diligence the Trust has to publish a cringing climb-down when it is discovered that the offer actually was a poisoned chalice. How professional would that appear? Of course, I exaggerate but a valid point, I think. At this stage, a measured response seems appropriate.

It seems to me, from the outside, that the Trust board actually are engaging "fully, positively, rapidly and professionally with it".